Battlefield 1 resolution scaling vs actual resolution

[ravinder2lf]

I was previously playing battlefield 1 on 4k resolution(custom resolution from ncp).

 

I was able to get smooth 60fps on high settings, PP low, 4x MFA. @Ultra FPS remains between 45-50.

 

Then I turned the resolution scale to 200% while the main resolution was set to 1080p. So technical its 4K.

 

I turned all settings to ULTRA, MFA 8X and the game is running @ smooth 60 fps. HOW?????????????

 

 

[Syntaxvgm]

200% 1080p isn't 4k- it isn't 2x verticle/horizontal, it's 200% of the pixels I think

 

1920x1080 - 2,073,600 pixels

200% 1920x1080 - 4,147,200 -2880 x 1620 I think

4k - 8,294,400

 

4k is double the number of pixels vertical and horizontal, but 4x the pixel count.

The reason I think they do it this way is a replacement for high end AA. FXAA sucks, TXAA is a fucking jpeg to me, and I hate that games have none of the more taxing AA these days, all in the name of the silly notion that if the current gen high end card can't "max' the settings, it's bad. What happenes when future harrdware wayy out-powers games? Where' my ridiculous AA options? And why use DSR when many games menus dont scale well with that?

Here's a thread where I bitched about it

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/680102-im-tired-of-this-trend/

 

[.Apex.]

20 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

2880 x 1620 I think

it's not 2880 x 1620 but yes close enough it's irrelevant

 

sorry just wanted to point that out

[Syntaxvgm]

1 minute ago, syn2112 said:

it's not 2880 x 1620 but yes close enough it's irrelevant

 

sorry just wanted to point that out

my head math is terrible.

[.Apex.]

1 minute ago, Syntaxvgm said:

my head math is terrible.

you had the right idea  i wouldnt say terrible

[ravinder2lf]

22 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

200% 1080p isn't 4k- it isn't 2x verticle/horizontal, it's 200% of the pixels I think

 

1920x1080 - 2,073,600 pixels

200% 1920x1080 - 4,147,200 -2880 x 1620 I think

4k - 8,294,400

 

4k is double the number of pixels vertical and horizontal, but 4x the pixel count.

The reason I think they do it this way is a replacement for high end AA. FXAA sucks, TXAA is a fucking jpeg to me, and I hate that games have none of the more taxing AA these days, all in the name of the silly notion that if the current gen high end card can't "max' the settings, it's bad. What happenes when future harrdware wayy out-powers games? Where' my ridiculous AA options? And why use DSR when many games menus dont scale well with that?

Here's a thread where I bitched about it

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/680102-im-tired-of-this-trend/

 

Actually in other forums ppl saying 200% means 4K if native is 1080p. But your 2x point makes sense thats why it's running @60fps on ultra settings. FXAA TAA are so annoying.

 

So tell me which one is good configuration to play that looks good to eyes including aliasing-

 

DSR @4K on high settings with PP  turned to low OR

200% resolution scale of 1080p on ultra settings?

[Syntaxvgm]

1 hour ago, ravinder2lf said:

Actually in other forums ppl saying 200% means 4K if native is 1080p. But your 2x point makes sense thats why it's running @60fps on ultra settings. FXAA TAA are so annoying.

 

So tell me which one is good configuration to play that looks good to eyes including aliasing-

 

DSR @4K on high settings with PP  turned to low OR

200% resolution scale of 1080p on ultra settings?

PP? 

Um, DSR 4k will likely look better edges wise, but I'm not sure if the menus scale right on BF (dont remember)

If you can do ultra on 1080p with 200% res scale though I'd go for that. 4k dsr wont make huge difference, and might as well max the game if you can. 

[AlTech]

2 hours ago, Syntaxvgm said:

PP? 

Um, DSR 4k will likely look better edges wise, but I'm not sure if the menus scale right on BF (dont remember)

If you can do ultra on 1080p with 200% res scale though I'd go for that. 4k dsr wont make huge difference, and might as well max the game if you can. 

What GPU are you using?

[Syntaxvgm]

6 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

What GPU are you using?

I played it with a 1080, but I haven't touched that game in a  long time. Maxed in 1080p with 144Fps, little below sometimes. 

[AlTech]

Just now, Syntaxvgm said:

I played it with a 1080, but I haven't touched that game in a  long time. Maxed in 1080p with 144Fps, little below sometimes. 

Rip Soz. Meant to ask OP lol.

 

Also, I think 200% resolution scaling means 2x resolution which in this case would mean 4K. Which would explain fairly similar performance.

4 hours ago, ravinder2lf said:

snip

What GPU are you using?

[Syntaxvgm]

4 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Rip Soz. Meant to ask OP lol.

 

Also, I think 200% resolution scaling means 2x resolution which in this case would mean 4K. Which would explain fairly similar performance.

What GPU are you using?

OP got better fps with 200% sclaing than dsr, and what I'm saying ITT is I think it's 200% the amount of pixels, not 200% the vertical or horizontal resolution. I find mixed shit on this, I even found a thread that said 42% was native res- I doubt that lol. I'm not gonna bother to test it right now, but I have a feeling it's total pixels x 200% 

[ravinder2lf]

7 hours ago, Syntaxvgm said:

PP? 

Um, DSR 4k will likely look better edges wise, but I'm not sure if the menus scale right on BF (dont remember)

If you can do ultra on 1080p with 200% res scale though I'd go for that. 4k dsr wont make huge difference, and might as well max the game if you can. 

PP-Post processing

It consumes lot of FPS @high.

[ravinder2lf]

5 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Rip Soz. Meant to ask OP lol.

 

Also, I think 200% resolution scaling means 2x resolution which in this case would mean 4K. Which would explain fairly similar performance.

What GPU are you using?

Its 1080. Only benefit with 200% res scale; the game runs @60fps on ultra

[Frankenburger]

On 5/23/2018 at 5:13 PM, Syntaxvgm said:

OP got better fps with 200% sclaing than dsr, and what I'm saying ITT is I think it's 200% the amount of pixels, not 200% the vertical or horizontal resolution. I find mixed shit on this, I even found a thread that said 42% was native res- I doubt that lol. I'm not gonna bother to test it right now, but I have a feeling it's total pixels x 200% 

From what I've seen, most games that have % based resolution scaling translates to width x 200% + height x 200%. Arma and Star Trek Online are a couple examples I can think of off the top of my head that confirms the rendering resolution when going above 100%.

 

The reason why OP noticed better performance with 200% scaling vs 4x DSR is probably due to post processing. Post Processing effects typically renders at the display resolution (DSR), not the internal resolution (render scale).

[ravinder2lf]

23 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

From what I've seen, most games that have % based resolution scaling translates to width x 200% + height x 200%. Arma and Star Trek Online are a couple examples I can think of off the top of my head that confirms the rendering resolution when going above 100%.

 

The reason why OP noticed better performance with 200% scaling vs 4x DSR is probably due to post processing. Post Processing effects typically renders at the display resolution (DSR), not the internal resolution (render scale).

I have checked both dsr and res scaling on bf1. @4k aliasing is not noticeable while @200% res scale aliasing is noticeable and to cover that AA has to be used alongside which results in lower fps. Again FXAA does nothing and TAA is too heavy at higher resolution. No inbetween AA available on BF1; can't even force MFAA via ncp. 

[Frankenburger]

41 minutes ago, ravinder2lf said:

I have checked both dsr and res scaling on bf1. @4k aliasing is not noticeable while @200% res scale aliasing is noticeable and to cover that AA has to be used alongside which results in lower fps. Again FXAA does nothing and TAA is too heavy at higher resolution. No inbetween AA available on BF1; can't even force MFAA via ncp. 

Sounds about right.

 

DSR averages pixels together, while upping the resolution scale does not. It's the same thing as taking a 4k screen shot and down scaling the screen shot to 1080p. Resolution scale is functionally similar to Ordered Grid Super Sampling, which turns 1 pixel into varying sub pixels with no significant blending. This is why using OGSSAA or increasing the render scale doesn't fully eliminate aliasing, and why you still need PPAA or MSAA to eliminate jagged edges.

 

Also, DX10/11/12 games can't be overwritten to force driver level AA. Instead, DX10/11/12 games can only be enhanced if said game already makes use of MSAA. Because BF1 doesn't make use of MSAA, trying to force or enhance MFAA/MSAA/SSAA through NVCP isn't going to do anything.

[ravinder2lf]

1 hour ago, Frankenburger said:

Sounds about right.

 

DSR averages pixels together, while upping the resolution scale does not. It's the same thing as taking a 4k screen shot and down scaling the screen shot to 1080p. Resolution scale is functionally similar to Ordered Grid Super Sampling, which turns 1 pixel into varying sub pixels with no significant blending. This is why using OGSSAA or increasing the render scale doesn't fully eliminate aliasing, and why you still need PPAA or MSAA to eliminate jagged edges.

 

Also, DX10/11/12 games can't be overwritten to force driver level AA. Instead, DX10/11/12 games can only be enhanced if said game already makes use of MSAA. Because BF1 doesn't make use of MSAA, trying to force or enhance MFAA/MSAA/SSAA through NVCP isn't going to do anything.

Running 4k dsr on 1080p screen is really odd for me. Just to eliminate aliasing so much stress on gpu. Hope someday we would not need any AA.

[Frankenburger]

11 minutes ago, ravinder2lf said:

Running 4k dsr on 1080p screen is really odd for me. Just to eliminate aliasing so much stress on gpu. Hope someday we would not need any AA.

Because of how aliasing occurs, it will always exist when rendering at or below your display's native resolution. But whether or not it'll be noticeable or distracting will largely depend on the pixel density of the screen. Hopefully 8k at 27" won't have much of an issue hiding aliasing.

[ravinder2lf]

3 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

Because of how aliasing occurs, it will always exist when rendering at or below your display's native resolution. But whether or not it'll be noticeable or distracting will largely depend on the pixel density of the screen.

agree.

 

a 1080p sceeen of 24" vs a 1080p screen of 32". aliasing is more noticeable on higher one & with dsr the higher one will benfit more. right?

[Frankenburger]

3 minutes ago, ravinder2lf said:

agree.

 

a 1080p sceeen of 24" vs a 1080p screen of 32". aliasing is more noticeable on higher one & with dsr the higher one will benfit more. right?

Exactly.

 

The funny thing about super sampling on a lower resolution screen, even if it's a larger format display, is it's easier to hide aliasing than a higher resolution screen of the same physical size. For example, a few years ago I had a 40" 1080p screen. Downsampling 4k on the 40" 1080p produced a much smoother image to my eyes than running 3840x2160 on my current 40" 4k screen. Of course, the 4k screen is much sharper, but it raises an interesting question - at what point does sharpness outweigh a well AA'd image? It's because of this that I hope Nvidia improves DSR, and that Windows eventually stops acting weird with DSR enabled.

[ravinder2lf]

9 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

Exactly.

 

The funny thing about super sampling on a lower resolution screen, even if it's a larger format display, is it's easier to hide aliasing than a higher resolution screen of the same physical size. For example, a few years ago I had a 40" 1080p screen. Downsampling 4k on the 40" 1080p produced a much smoother image to my eyes than running 3840x2160 on my current 40" 4k screen. Of course, the 4k screen is much sharper, but it raises an interesting question - at what point does sharpness outweigh a well AA'd image? It's because of this that I hope Nvidia improves DSR, and that Windows eventually stops acting weird with DSR enabled.

there is option in ncp "dsr smoothness" which is set at 33% by default. is 33% good? what if we use "create custom resolution"? in this case there is no smoothness option which would be 0 by default? how you define this?

[Frankenburger]

2 minutes ago, ravinder2lf said:

there is option in ncp "dsr smoothness" which is set at 33% by default. is 33% good? what if we use "create custom resolution"? in this case there is no smoothness option which would be 0 by default? how you define this?

I personally don't mind 33% smoothness, but it's fairly common for people to recommend a lower value such as 25% or so. Using a custom resolution does blend pixels, but I don't know how this is done exactly or how it compares to the way DSR blends pixels.

[ravinder2lf]

11 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

I personally don't mind 33% smoothness, but it's fairly common for people to recommend a lower value such as 25% or so. Using a custom resolution does blend pixels, but I don't know how this is done exactly or how it compares to the way DSR blends pixels.

so dsr is better?

[Frankenburger]

2 minutes ago, ravinder2lf said:

so dsr is better?

I guess that's subjective. Both methods have their own benefits.

 

To me, the blending done with custom resolutions looks better than DSR. Also, it's much easier to create a non-standard downsampled resolution using custom resolution than DSR (like 3840x1080). However, the highest custom resolution you can do at 60Hz is 3840x2160. Anything higher than 3840x2160 and you need to lower the refresh rate. With DSR, you don't need to sacrifice your refresh rate to downsample, and the highest possible DSR factor to my knowledge is 64x, which can be done through registry tweaks.

[ravinder2lf]

22 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

I guess that's subjective. Both methods have their own benefits.

 

To me, the blending done with custom resolutions looks better than DSR. Also, it's much easier to create a non-standard downsampled resolution using custom resolution than DSR (like 3840x1080). However, the highest custom resolution you can do at 60Hz is 3840x2160. Anything higher than 3840x2160 and you need to lower the refresh rate. With DSR, you don't need to sacrifice your refresh rate to downsample, and the highest possible DSR factor to my knowledge is 64x, which can be done through registry tweaks.

I found this somewhere.

DSR is basically simplified version of custom resolutions with a different filter (not bilinear but gaussian) and not being limited by hz,screen or cable.

 

So there is filter difference. Need to search more which filter is more better or both have different aspects.